>Besides, if Neanderthal men found sapiens women beautiful, then Neanderthals >could be in our ancestry and this is still consistent with the results of >the DNA tests. mtDNA is only passed on by women to their offspring. Thus >if Neanderthal men all married sapien women, the mtDNA passed on to the next >generation would be sapiens mtDNA! This result only proves that there is no >direct maternal line from Neandertals to modern men. It does not rule out >Neanderthal ancestry of other sorts.

There could have been friendly contact I suppose, but I rather suspect, human
nature being what it is, that H. sapiens and Neanderthals were adversaries
judging from the eventual eradication of the big guys. If that was the case,
H. sapiens women were probably spoils of war and the resulting offspring
never made it back into H. sapiens culture. Still, it's just a guess.

(Dick wrote previously:)

>>Why wouldn't biological humans be theological humans?>>Because it is behavior which marks us as humans not looks, not genetics. You >don't behave like a frog, sticking your tongue out everytime a fly flies by.

Not in public I don't!

>You don't live in trees and hoot like a chimp.

Not since I became a Christian and gave up drinking.

>You behave like a human.

I behave like a human because I am human - a biological, anthropological,
mammalian biped. But please excuse me if I fail to recognize newly
coined metaphors such as "theological human." There are enough confusing
categories already. Why not just human, sub-human and non-human? Are there
non-theological humans? How about theological sub-humans? Or sub-theological
non-humans? Or non-theological submarines? Where would it all end? :)